Are conservatives mentally/intellectually inept?

There are still floods of them that think the Iraq war was necessary, after all the information, facts, and evidence that prove otherwise.

 

Short Answer: yes.

 

Question: Are all liberals stuck with their head up their ass?

Short and long answer: Yes


Ask a stupid question, get a stupid response.

 

Clever.

Neocons' foreign policy is extremely hawkish and oriented towards what their critics see as a quasi-messianic spreading of democracy and free institutions around the world at gunpoint.

Although early neocons like Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely influential in the Reagan era, the term has become most infamous since the 2003 Iraq war because of the high visibility of the think tanks "American Enterprise Institute" and "the Project for the New American Century," along with commentators Irving and Bill Kristol and policy architects like Paul Wolfowitz.

"The New Right Conservative" movements in America are perhaps the most powerful, worrying and widespread force within conservatism today. There are useful wikipedia articles on the new right as a concept and a section in American conservatism but in the media, one invariably sees the new right labeled as "neocon," which of course is a bit of a problem when the neocons are a relatively seperate and distinct group with quite different views. I find that Reagan, Thatcher, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the new Conservative Party of Canada are best grouped within the "New Right" category.

Brief Answer: The 2003 Iraq war was undeniably avoidable. The success of any on-going war is determinable by that country's ability to remain united. People are claiming the Iraq war was necessary because what else do you think "The Patriot Act" is for? A government doesn't function unless it is built upon a layer of solidarity and this war is a predisposition that the American leaders can justify the means to a desirable end incontrovertible to the facts under a guise of some political morality wedged somewhere between "neocons" and "social conservatives" to which the public is already involuntarily a part of.

*rants*

 

Good answer!

 

The ultra-left is just as bad, if not worse, than the ultra-right.

 

...

 

There is a difference between classic, true conservatism, and what we think is conservatism today.

Bush is in fact one of the most liberal presidents. Maybe even the most liberal. He has not yet vetoed one single spending bill, and he has spent more money since he's been in office than all presidents before him combined. That is no joke.

Because Bush is so liberal, he has to use phony social issues, like morals and religion, to con the moronic "Religious Right" to vote for his sorry ass. We all know Bush isn't a Christian, and he most certainly does not have morals. It's all a front.

George W. Bush is a meglomaniacal, sadistic, power-hungry, alcoholic servant of the hidden hand he answers to.

Neoconservatism is not conservatism at all. The reason neocons are called neo-cons (which translates to "new conservative") is because the first neocons (as well as most of today's) were former Leftists. The founders of the Neoconservative movement, such as Irving Kristol, were all Trotskyites with a penchant for the writings of Leo Strauss. Kristol, Cheney and Rumsfeld, among others, are devotees of the doctrine of permanent revolution - also known as perpetual war for perpetual peace.

 

You are absolutely right, both extremes are equally bad. For one, both sides want to impose their beliefs and way of life on each other. How is such dogma any different than that imposed by religion?

I see them as useful idiots myself, whether they cling to the "liberal" or "conservative" label. That's because it's all a sham. The Elite want you to cling to one side or the other (both in which they control) so they can better manipulate and control you. When you create a polarity and sportslike mentality among the people, you can make them argue amongst themselves, distracting them from the real issues behind the Left/Right smoke screen shoved in their faces daily by the corporate media.

Also, once you seperate the masses into two groups, you can literally control what they think. Once you get people loyal to one side or the other, they will often indentify with that side, never asking the real questions that might challenge the status quo imposed by their side. Since you have predominately only two sides, the two are really nothing more than a controlled opposition of each other. It's all a distraction from the truth, which is neither liberal nor conservative. All of this liberal vs. conservative bullshit is designed for the uninformed public's consumption, to divert their attention and make them blind to the truth while they are at each other's throats, arguing amongst themselves over mundane media talking points. Like the signature I had below my posts a couple weeks ago read: "It's not Left vs. Right - It's the State vs. You." You cannot sum it up much better than that!

 

there was that fun study printed recently that showed that "both sides" are equally capable of ignoring facts that don't support their opinion.

 

lol, love it when scientists get involved to do studies to inform people of the obvious.

 

Pressed_rat you are a rightist after all. Everything you say has a rightist tone to it.

How a person spends or how much doesn't make them a liberal or a none liberal. lol

 

All leftism wants is peace, harmony, and justice.

Leftism: One who holds a left-wing viewpoint; someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality and equity.

Rightism: One who strongly favors retention of the existing order: conservative, orthodox, right-winger, Tory, traditionalist.

 

Fuck your definition, I'm a right-winger but I don't want the to keep the existing order.

 

Your aren't one if you don't agree with the definition. Rightism is about keeping things as they are. If it wasn't for liberalism you wouldn't know what a computer is. You would still be living in a cave.

 

I am neither Right nor Left. I don't believe in phony labels that seek only to divide and mislead.

Interesting. Considering the primary difference between a liberal and conservative is the size of government. Liberals are often big spenders who want equally big government. Conservatives believe in less government, thus, less spending.

Bush is not a "conservative" by definition. The only reason one might be able to call Bush a conservative is because he is "Christian" and supposedly opposed to abortion and gay marriage. But, as I have said, that's all just a way of making people think Bush is a conservative, when he is liberal in almost every other way.

 

No, it really isn't though, if there was a socialist president and congress and the US embarked on a campaign of mass nationalization and bigger government, do you think say 4 years later if a bunch of right wing people regained control of the presidency and congress that they'd want to keep thing the way they are? I don't think so. The dictionary definition doesn't always apply to the current real life meaning of the word.

 

Liberalism is not an economical ideology it is a political ideology and a school of thought. Conservative reason is useless and belongs in the past not anywhere in a civilized society.

Conservatism, supports the maintenance of the status quo. Liberalism, seeks what it considers to be improvement or progress, necessarily desires to change the existing order.

 

It's both.

 

ok, but what you say has a rightist tone to it, do you deny this?

all just misconceptions. A real "liberal" by the definition doesn't support big corporations or war and bush does. I don't what he is but you cannot call him a liberal because that is just misleading.